Posted
by
timothy
on Friday March 26, 2010 @07:30PM
from the perhaps-it's-the-oj-jury dept.

Excelcia writes "Closing arguments in the six and a bit year old slander of title case between SCO and Novell occurred today and the case is finally in the hands of the jury. It's been an interesting case, with SCO alternately claiming that the copyrights to UNIX did get transferred to them, and that the copyrights should have been transferred to them. 'Judge Ted Stewart said, after the jury left to begin to deliberate, that in all his years on the bench, he's never seen such fine lawyering as in this case.' We're not going to find out the results until at least Tuesday, however, as one juror is taking a long weekend. Great lawyering notwithstanding, we can all hope next week that the Energizer bunny of all spurious lawsuits will finally go away."

The language of the courtroom is a mix of legal jargon and programmer jargon, glued together with the English of people who went to graduate school. To the jury it's a bunch of babble.

Once you ignore all that, you're left with a sob story. The little guy is hurt. Obviously, money is required. People don't sue unless somebody else did something bad, and the trial only requires a likelyhood for a win, so there you go. SCO wins.

anyone going after BSD would need to go after one of the finest law schools in america, with almost unlimited grad and post grad students available to do research work and law professors as well as other practising lawyers working at virtually nil cost to the university.

sounds frightening doesn't it? hence the reason SCO didn't even think about attacking BSD, and instead went after linux users like IBM, because IBM was soft in comparision even though i believe there is a quote from IBM somewhere that states they will "turn the skies over utha black with lawyers" before they let SCO win.

I think they did not go after BSD as Microsoft uses (has used) BSD. They do not care about the rest. And rightfully so. You should go after somebody if you think you are in the right not based on the quality of the lawyers. Because that would mean your legal system is completely fucked up.

If that would be the case, say a big music consortium could go after individuals and just take whatever they want. That would never..., oh, wait, never mind.